
The Trump Administration’s Double Standard of Justice
A federal judge will decide next month whether the U.S. legal system treats presidential allies differently from presidential antagonists.
A federal judge will decide next month whether the U.S. legal system treats presidential allies differently from presidential antagonists.
Proposals from libertarian, conservative, and progressive scholars displayed a few striking differences—but also some profound similarities.
The courts have refused to be made pawns in President Trump’s efforts to overturn the election.
These lawsuits have upended courts’ role in interpreting voting laws.
It never has.
What the president and his lawyers have been attempting to do deserves punishment that will likely never come.
The path lies not in legislation but through the deregulation of mifepristone—the only drug the FDA has approved to safely and effectively terminate an early pregnancy.
The president’s abuse of his clemency power is an assault on one of the few truly humane aspects of the American legal system.
Each day, it becomes more urgent that Republicans and conservatives speak in defense of institutions and in defiance of the president’s posture.
The legislative branch is constitutionally charged with checking abuses in the executive branch—and it must act to ensure a smooth transition.
The president may not have to worry about keeping a job after January 20, 2021, but the attorneys doing his bidding at the moment certainly do.
The president’s litigation strategy is unlikely to succeed, but it’s doing great harm in the meantime.
Millions of Americans could lose their insurance—and neither Joe Biden nor the states will be in a good position to do much about it.
His bald complaints are not viable legal claims—and the courts won’t save him.
Counting ballots takes time—and the process isn’t required to arbitrarily stop at the end of Election Day.
Enabling sustained minority rule at the national level is not a feature of our constitutional design, but a perversion of it.
What was once constitutionally prohibited is now constitutionally required.
The idea that people of faith must be protected from discrimination—even when that means they themselves will discriminate against others—is gaining traction in the courts.
Even if Trump were resolved to thwart a smooth transition, much of the process lies entirely outside his control.
The Constitution should be the sturdy vessel of our ideals and aspirations, not a derelict sailing ship locked in the ice of a world far from our own.
The Court may well invalidate the law, but not without taking a considerable risk.
An overlooked corner of the Constitution hints at a right to be protected from infection.
The Bush v. Gore fight has become the template of a disputed election, but many of the worst-case scenarios could end up before Congress, not the Court.
The United States is the only country that allows this practice, and soon the Supreme Court could get rid of it.
The multiday spectacle gave viewers little understanding of the most important issue the Court will rule on: how Americans vote and whether those votes matter.
And the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against her is a disgrace.
Pay attention to phrases such as settled law and stare decisis, and a whole other layer of meaning will come to the fore.
Those tasked with administering justice are overwhelmingly white and male, while the country is not.
The concept of precedent isn’t valuable just for the guidance it provides but also for the confidence it instills in political and legal systems. Republicans are treating it recklessly.
Seven months into the pandemic, courts around the country are beginning to restart their criminal dockets. But the practical obstacles are staggering.
Having one document that sets up a government does not result in better democratic outcomes than having a mix of statutes, norms, and precedents.
The Supreme Court told citizens to improve the country’s democracy by passing ballot initiatives. They tried.
In the 1940s, the scholar William Ernest Hocking envisioned a theory under which the government actively facilitated free speech.
The state previews how far Republican judges will go to obstruct Democrats in office.
Rules exist for what could come next, but they won’t prevent total chaos.
There’s simply not enough time to do this properly before the election.
Expanding the Supreme Court makes sense for both practical and constitutional reasons.
Bill Barr is convinced that the country is betraying its founding—and that it’s up to him to stop it.
The justice understood that the two great principles of American democracy—equality and liberty—are not at odds, but rather integral to each other.
The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concludes an era of faith in courts as partners in the fight for progress and equality.
But they could help restore confidence in the confirmation process and eliminate public concerns about aging justices.
Remembering a woman who meant the world to those lucky enough to work for her
And the country.
In one of her most revealing interviews, the justice discusses her losses, her struggles, and her hope for the future.
The Supreme Court’s majority is transforming this onetime protection into a sword to strike down hard-fought advances in civil rights.
Over the past 50 years, America has given up on the Enlightenment-era ideals of its Founders—and the country’s coronavirus disaster is the result.
The country has narrowly averted catastrophic deadlocks over the presidential-election outcome before. We may not be so fortunate in 2020.
Rather than completely eliminate the procedure, Democrats should reform it so that it continues to exist for truly extraordinary circumstances.
But Americans can still fight to protect democracy this year and beyond.
His tribe objected. The victim’s family objected. Even the case’s original prosecutor objected. But he’s scheduled to get the death penalty anyway.
We can’t assume that all will be fine in the end, but history shows us that times of unrest are opportunities, too.
The persistence of birtherism is a depressing feature of our corrupt and hateful national dialogue.
Short of an outright constitutional crisis, a lot could still go horribly wrong.
“Unlawful assembly” is like “illegal writing” or “forbidden religious exercise”: There surely may be such a thing, but what qualifies?
The goal shouldn’t be to make the Court less ideological, but to make it less powerful.
And it starts with undermining the U.S. Postal Service.
Saying nothing often is saying something.
Section 1981 has been on the books for more than 150 years. But its promise has never been fulfilled.
Trump’s words are dangerous, and society must find ways big and small to push back.
Unconstitutional police activity is not conservative. It’s authoritarian.